log_action

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description mentions append-only nature and file location (~/.agent-audit-log/), but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what happens on duplicates. No annotations provided, so burden is on description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise at 5 lines of German plus Args/Returns section. Mixed language is acceptable but could be more consistent. Every part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. Missing error conditions and example usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%; description adds example values for action and explains details as additional details. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or allowed values beyond the examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses clear verb 'loggt' and specific resource 'Agent-Aktion in ein Append-Only Audit-Log'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_audit_log (read) and check_compliance (different purpose).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like check_compliance or emergency_stop. Usage is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.